↓ Skip to main content

Misleading clinical evidence and systematic reviews on ivermectin for COVID-19

Overview of attention for article published in BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine, April 2021
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#2 of 1,343)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
25 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
2731 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
18 Wikipedia pages
reddit
5 Redditors
video
3 video uploaders

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
113 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Misleading clinical evidence and systematic reviews on ivermectin for COVID-19
Published in
BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine, April 2021
DOI 10.1136/bmjebm-2021-111678
Pubmed ID
Authors

Luis Ignacio Garegnani, Eva Madrid, Nicolás Meza

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2,731 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 113 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 113 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 17%
Student > Master 10 9%
Other 9 8%
Student > Bachelor 8 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 5%
Other 22 19%
Unknown 39 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 4%
Other 21 19%
Unknown 43 38%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2139. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 January 2023.
All research outputs
#3,484
of 23,008,860 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine
#2
of 1,343 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#189
of 432,618 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine
#1
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,008,860 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,343 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 432,618 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.